Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Austin the Sengi said:
@RandomZooVisitorYT I agree with your hot take, although, while it is true that the Disney-created Kingdom of Anandapur does takes inspiration from India (and to some extent, Nepal). The animal selection seen along the Maharajah Jungle Trek mostly consists of general Southeast Asian fauna; with their Lion-Tailed Macaques being the most notable animal to actually hail from India.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the theme when referring to Disney, thanks for the input
 
@RandomZooVisitorYT No problem, and while we’re on this subject, I would love to see an Indian exhibit that could rotate Lions and Tigers together between two separate enclosures!

Given this would be in an American zoo, the most realistic options for each animal would be African Lions (P. l. melanochaita) and either Malayan (P. t. tigris / jacksoni) or Sumatran (P. t. sondaica / sumatrae) Tigers.
 
Austin the Sengi said:
@RandomZooVisitorYT No problem, and while we’re on this subject, I would love to see an Indian exhibit that could rotate Lions and Tigers together between two separate enclosures!

Given this would be in an American zoo, the most realistic options for each animal would be African Lions (P. l. melanochaita) and either Malayan (P. t. tigris / jacksoni) or Sumatran (P. t. sondaica / sumatrae) Tigers.
Click to expand...
One idea I had that could be interesting is what if a zoo did a rescue from a roadside zoo and displayed them (so long as they aren't being breed) on rotation with genetically pure sumatran or malayan tigers. Would require multiple yards.
 
I suppose that’s one way to do it, although, personally I would stick to one subspecies / population of tiger.

Also, if any moderator can move this active conservation to the Biodiversity hotspots & ecoregions you would like zoos to represent thread, that would be great.
 
Rohin, if you ever wanted to know my viewpoint of tiger taxonomy, then I would recommend you my post on the subject in the What is your favorite subspecies/race of a particular animal thread, rather than starting another argument about tiger genetics.
 
Austin the Sengi said:
Rohin, if you ever wanted to know my viewpoint of tiger taxonomy, then I would recommend you my post on the subject in the What is your favorite subspecies/race of a particular animal thread, rather than starting another argument about tiger genetics.
Click to expand...
The post says you follow the new tiger taxonomy, something which you are completely within your rights to do and my post wasn't intended to start an argument about tiger genetics.

Your initial post stated that you would choose either the Malayan or Sumatran subspecies or populations (depending on your view on taxonomy) as as stand-ins for the Bengal tiger. I understand you view them as populations of two different subspecies, so if you are willing to specify a certain population of tiger to use as a substitute, wouldn't it make more sense to use Amur tigers since they are regarded as more closely related to the Bengal no matter what type of tiger taxonomy you follow? They seem to be quite common in America and along with Malayan tigers, will be the same subspecies as the Bengals according to the New Cat Taxonomy.
 
If @RandomZooVisitorYT or some other ZooChatter were to base their Indian exhibit in a zoo with a seasonal climate (ex., Michigan), then yes, Amur Tigers would be the best substitute. Otherwise, if said facility was located in a warmer climate (ex., Florida), then the next best subspecies / population would be the Malayan Tiger.
 
Austin the Sengi said:
If @RandomZooVisitorYT or some other ZooChatter were to base their Indian exhibit in a zoo with a seasonal climate (ex., Michigan), then yes, Amur Tigers would be the best tiger substitute. Otherwise, if said zoo was located in a warmer climate (ex., Florida), then the next best subspecies / population would be the Malayan Tiger.
Click to expand...
To be clear (since I didn't seem to explain it well in my previous post), I didn't mean to say Amur would be better than Malayan, just that it would make more sense than Sumatran.

And regarding the temperature, is there truly that much of a difference between the tolerance of different subspecies? Zoos in both North America and Europe may keep both Amur tigers and a tropical subspecies in the same collection - Bronx with its Amur and Malayan tigers, Prague with all the tiger subspecies found in western captivity (with Berlin also having all of them until relatively recently). There also cases of zoos located relatively close to each other having different subspecies: London and Whipsnade, Edinburgh and HWP (Sumatran and Amur tigers respectively in both cases).
 
@Rohin, regarding your second statement, I must’ve forgotten that zoos maintain such a practice when I wrote my previous reply; but yes, that is something any aspiring designer may choose to consider.
 
USZOOfan42 said:
If a species has less than 20 individuals in the wild zoos should step in.
Click to expand...

Is this species represented in zoos/aquariums already? Or are we talking about a species with fewer than 20 wild individuals that doesn't exist in an ex situ population?

In short, I think zoos/aquariums should get involved.

Realistically, and the vaquita porpoise being prime example of this, I'd say that 20 individuals would be to little to late. We tried taking vaquita's in to zoos when the remaining wild population was already in dire straits and the individuals bought in didn't survive.

It would have been much more beneficial to bring them in when their numbers weren't as critically low and you could 'afford the losses' for lack of a better phrase, to learn from and try increase their chances of survival in zoos.
 
Jonny Bloxham said:
Is this species represented in zoos/aquariums already? Or are we talking about a species with fewer than 20 wild individuals that doesn't exist in an ex situ population?

In short, I think zoos/aquariums should get involved.

Realistically, and the vaquita porpoise being prime example of this, I'd say that 20 individuals would be to little to late. We tried taking vaquita's in to zoos when the remaining wild population was already in dire straits and the individuals bought in didn't survive.

It would have been much more beneficial to bring them in when their numbers weren't as critically low and you could 'afford the losses' for lack of a better phrase, to learn from and try increase their chances of survival in zoos.
Click to expand...
It should be both imao. Another point to add is, if the population is already declining it doesn’t hurt to try to save the species.
 
USZOOfan42 said:
It should be both imao. Another point to add is, if the population is already declining it doesn’t hurt to try to save the species.
Click to expand...

I think actually if the population is so few and declining, then bringing them into zoos could actually hurt them.

Again, using the vaquita porpoise as an example. They are classified as critically endangered but they are not functionally extinct. But removing some of those 8-13 remaining individuals in the wild to bring them into zoos that isn't guaranteed to work could be the writing in the sand for the entire species. Whereas putting efforts and resources (that zoos can absolutely contribute too) into preserving the environment the vaquitas inhabit and eliminating the threats to those 8-13 individuals would hopefully enable them to start doing what they need to do to regrow their population size.
 
Jonny Bloxham said:
I think actually if the population is so few and declining, then bringing them into zoos could actually hurt them.

Again, using the vaquita porpoise as an example. They are classified as critically endangered but they are not functionally extinct. But removing some of those 8-13 remaining individuals in the wild to bring them into zoos that isn't guaranteed to work could be the writing in the sand for the entire species. Whereas putting efforts and resources (that zoos can absolutely contribute too) into preserving the environment the vaquitas inhabit and eliminating the threats to those 8-13 individuals would hopefully enable them to start doing what they need to do to regrow their population size.
Click to expand...
It depends on the animal, aquatic animals already struggle in captivity and the amount of stress that it would bring would definitely hurt the population.
 
I would also say that species like the hirola or saola to name a couple fit this discussion topic. While their numbers are no where near as few as the vaquita, they aren't well represented in zoos and perhaps conversations or testing the waters of their adaptability to life under human care need to be had before they get to that point.

Having said that we are seeing success with sifaka species and pangolins having increased lifespans and successful breedings/rearings of young where they historically have not been successful in the past.

I believe there is a document or policy, I can't exactly remember it's title. But it basically addresses the act of 'harvesting' genetics from wild populations to bolster genetic diversity but in the process addresses the principles of bring said individuals into captivity.
 
Jonny Bloxham said:
I would also say that species like the hirola or saola to name a couple fit this discussion topic. While their numbers are no where near as few as the vaquita, they aren't well represented in zoos and perhaps conversations or testing the waters of their adaptability to life under human care need to be had before they get to that point.
Click to expand...

I mean, there is every possibility that the saola is down to single figures too.... or has already been lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top